Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usnr20

Society & Natural ResourcesAn International Journal

ISSN: 0894-1920 (Print) 1521-0723 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

Land Trusts as Conservation BoundaryOrganizations in Rapidly Exurbanizing Landscapes:A Case Study from Southern Appalachia

Katherine Brownson, Jessica Chappell, Jason Meador, Jennifer Bloodgood,Jillian Howard, Linda Kosen, Hannah Burnett, Tara Gancos-Crawford,Elizabeth Guinessey, Nik Heynen, Caitlin Mertzlufft, Sebastian Ortiz &Catherine Pringle

To cite this article: Katherine Brownson, Jessica Chappell, Jason Meador, Jennifer Bloodgood,Jillian Howard, Linda Kosen, Hannah Burnett, Tara Gancos-Crawford, Elizabeth Guinessey, NikHeynen, Caitlin Mertzlufft, Sebastian Ortiz & Catherine Pringle (2020): Land Trusts as ConservationBoundary Organizations in Rapidly Exurbanizing Landscapes: A Case Study from SouthernAppalachia, Society & Natural Resources, DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2020.1731034

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1731034

Published online: 05 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 106

View related articles

View Crossmark data

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usnr20https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08941920.2020.1731034https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1731034https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=usnr20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=usnr20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/08941920.2020.1731034https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/08941920.2020.1731034http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/08941920.2020.1731034&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-03-05http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/08941920.2020.1731034&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-03-05

Land Trusts as Conservation Boundary Organizations inRapidly Exurbanizing Landscapes: A Case Study fromSouthern Appalachia

Katherine Brownsona, Jessica Chappella, Jason Meadorb, Jennifer Bloodgoodc,Jillian Howardc, Linda Kosend, Hannah Burnette, Tara Gancos-Crawfordc,Elizabeth Guinesseya, Nik Heynenf, Caitlin Mertzlufftf, Sebastian Ortizc, andCatherine Pringlea

aOdum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA; bMainspring Conservation Trust, Inc.,Franklin, NC, USA; cDaniel B. Warnell School of Forestry, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA;dDepartment of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA; eDepartment of Anthropology,University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA; fDepartment of Geography, University of Georgia, Athens,GA, USA

ABSTRACTExurban development is occurring in many formerly rural areasnationwide, often outpacing the ability of institutions to update landuse regulations. These pressures can negatively impact local ecosys-tems and natural resources, including reduced biodiversity anddegraded water quality. Local nongovernmental organizations playan important role in promoting conservation in exurban landscapes,where there is relatively little regulatory and institutional infrastruc-ture. Here, we draw on boundary organization theory to discuss howland trusts can function as boundary organizations, by using bound-ary objects and working as a bridge between community members,scientists, and governments to navigate complex conservation chal-lenges. Mainspring Conservation Trust in southern Appalachia servesas a case study to explore methods for engaging and connectingdiverse stakeholders. We show that land trusts can provide a flexibleand necessary alternative to regulations for meeting conservationobjectives by working at the boundary between science andlocal action.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 10 October 2018Accepted 23 November 2019

KEYWORDSBiomonitoring; boundaryobjects; boundaryorganizations; citizenscience; exurbanization;land trusts; watershedconservation

Introduction

Efforts to encourage conservation on private lands are essential for biodiversity conser-vation (Knight 1999) and the continued provisioning of ecosystem services (Goldmanet al. 2008). In some areas, private lands are under pressure from “exurbanization”,which is developed in rural areas tied to one or more metropolitan centers, but occur-ring beyond that urban area and its suburbs (Kirk, Bolstad, and Manson 2012;Spectorsky 1955). Land trusts are nonprofit conservation organizations that facilitateconservation on private lands (Chang 2016) primarily through the use of conservation

CONTACT Katherine Brownson katie.m.brownson@gmail.com Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia,140 E. Green St., Athens, GA 30602-2202, USA.� 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCEShttps://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1731034

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/08941920.2020.1731034&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-03-03https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1731034http://www.tandfonline.com

easements (Kiesecker et al. 2007). As of 2015, land trusts had conserved 56 million acresin the United States, with 30% of these acres protected under voluntary conservationeasements (Chang 2016). Conservation easements provide a flexible approach that limitscertain development or extractive activities in exchange for a reduced property tax bur-den (Merenlender et al. 2004).In this paper, we demonstrate how land trusts can act as boundary organizations in

exurbanizing areas where conservation regulations are limited. Boundary organizations wereinitially defined as organizations that work at the interface of science and policy and havethree main characteristics (Guston 1999). First, they offer a platform for boundary objectsand standardized packages to be created and used. Boundary objects foster communicationbetween heterogeneous groups of stakeholders (Star and Griesemer 1989) and maybe tan-gible objects or conceptual frameworks (Sternlieb et al. 2013). Standardized packages aresimilar to boundary objects but encourage cooperation across the boundary to define a com-mon workspace (Guston 1999). Second, boundary organizations involve the collaboration ofactors from both sides of the boundary, as well as professional mediators. Finally, boundaryorganizations function at the interface of two distinct social worlds while maintainingaccountability to each (Guston 1999, 2001).The main benefit of boundary organizations is their capacity to stabilize the divide

between two parties with different values, helping both sides achieve mutually beneficialoutcomes and providing a service that neither can fulfill independently (Guston 1999).However, this definition was limited to organizations that span across science and pol-icy. We argue the definition should expand to include any organization that works toreach a common outcome by bridging distinct stakeholder groups while being respon-sive and accountable to the interests of parties on both sides of a boundary. This argu-ment builds on ongoing conversation in the conservation field, where boundaryorganizations have served to enhance communication not only between scientists andpolicymakers (Borkhataria et al. 2017; Kennedy 2018), but also to facilitate multi-stake-holder groups in developing policies and management strategies (Cook et al. 2013;Caine 2016) and to coordinate conservation activities across landscapes (Westerinket al. 2017; Cash 2001). Broadening the definition of boundary organizations enablesflexibility in identifying the most locally relevant boundaries and actors to engage inboundary work to meet specific conservation objectives and allows for a wider under-standing of how organizations can successfully maintain trust on either side ofa boundary.Here, we draw on Guston (1999) and utilize Mainspring Conservation Trust, a land

trust operating in Franklin, North Carolina, as a case study to demonstrate how landtrusts can function as boundary organizations. As much of the existing empirical litera-ture on boundary organizations is descriptive (Gustafsson and Lidskog 2018), we seekto apply theory to our case study and demonstrate how land trusts can facilitate interac-tions between otherwise disparate stakeholders. Although the boundary organizationconcept has been applied to agricultural extension agencies (Cash 2001), integratedcatchment management agencies (Carr and Wilkinson, 2005) and conservation NGOs(Caine 2016; Borkhataria et al. 2017), to our knowledge, it has not been applied to landtrusts. We will show how land trusts can facilitate adaptive, long-term relationships that

2 K. BROWNSON ET AL.

stabilize the divide between different parties, achieving the objective of boundaryorganizations (Cash 2001; Cash and Moser 2000).We draw on our direct experiences collaborating with Mainspring and working in

southern Appalachia. We first discuss the context for Mainspring’s activities, includingan integrative review of the socio-ecological conservation challenges presented by exur-banization in southern Appalachia. We then summarize Mainspring’s conservation ini-tiatives and use boundary organization theory to evaluate their function as a boundaryorganization. We conclude with “lessons learned” for successful conservation actionsland trusts can implement in areas with diverse stakeholders and a dearth of conserva-tion enforcement.

Case Study

Background on Southern Appalachia

Southern Appalachia includes over 37 million acres of mountainous region from north-eastern West Virginia south into northern Georgia and Alabama (Southern AppalachianMan and the Biosphere Cooperative 1996; Figure 1). This region has high aquatic andterrestrial biodiversity (Vieites, Min, and Wake 2007) and is experiencing significantexurbanization pressure, largely as a result of “amenity migration”, as urbanites aredrawn to rural natural resources (Taylor 2011). Exurban development in the southernAppalachians is also driven by socio-economic incentives, including minimal zoningrestrictions and land use regulations (Kirk, Bolstad, and Manson 2012; Gragson andBolstad 2006).Ironically, the lack of regulation threatens to undermine precisely those natural amen-

ities that spurred development in the first place (Vercoe et al. 2014). Newcomers whosehomes serve as secondary residences are more likely to remove riparian vegetation thangenerational residents (Evans and Jensen-Ryan 2017). Additionally, steep slopedevelopment increases the likelihood of landslides for the region (Burkett et al. 2001)and climate predictions suggest wetter winters may lead to more frequent flooding (Wu,Clark, and Vose 2014). These activities threaten water quality, as even relatively modestreductions in forest cover (18–22%) can significantly increase sedimentation (Price andLeigh 2006). Increasing development pressures makes the maintenance of diverseaquatic and terrestrial ecosystems a significant challenge.In exurban watersheds, working to build dialogue and stronger social networks may

help prevent the capture and marketization of unregulated resources by private develop-ers that export revenues outside of local communities (Heynen et al. 2007). This isespecially true in areas where regulations are not likely to be introduced due to thehigh-value local residents place on private property rights (Evans and Jensen-Ryan2017). In this context, land trusts and conservation easements may be particularly rele-vant, as they maintain private land ownership (Kiesecker et al. 2007) and provide flexi-bility in allowing certain productive or extractive land uses (Owley and Rissman 2016).Considering that landowners are more likely to enroll land in a conservation easementif they do not rely on it for income (Farmer et al. 2015; Cross et al. 2011) and manyexurban landowners value their land for its natural amenities rather than its productive

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 3

capacity, conservation easements can be a valuable tool for voluntarily restricting furtherdevelopment on private lands.

Mainspring Conservation Trust

Mainspring Conservation Trust is based in Franklin, North Carolina and functions asa land trust in the Upper Little Tennessee and Hiwassee River valleys, an area

Figure 1. Map of the southern Appalachians and Mainspring Conservation Trust’s service area.

4 K. BROWNSON ET AL.

covering over 1.65 million acres in western North Carolina and Northeast Georgia(Figure 1). Mainspring operates on a $1.4 million budget, with funding from individ-ual donations (71%), private foundations (28%), and governmental entities (2%)(Mainspring Conservation Trust 2018). The nonprofit is made up of a Board ofDirectors, which governs the Executive Director who oversees 11 full-time staffmembers. Mainspring’s mission is to conserve the waters, forests, farms, and heritagein their service area. The organization has a diverse range of strategies to achievethese objectives, including community education, citizen science, stream monitoringand restoration, land acquisition and protection, and landowner stewardship.Conceptually, all of Mainspring’s activities can be categorized into one of three focalareas: land, water, or cultural heritage. However, the activities are interconnected, inthat land protection leads to healthier waters, aquatic monitoring identifies land inneed of conservation or restoration, and the entire landscape is blanketed in richcultural history.The foundation for Mainspring was laid in 1993 when conservation-minded citizens

held the Little Tennessee River Watershed Conference to bring awareness to the needfor protection of the area’s rich natural resources. These needs were met through thedevelopment of two separate entities, a watershed association (est. 1994) and land trust(est. 1997). In 2012, the organizations merged into the Land Trust for the LittleTennessee (LTLT). Mainspring Conservation Trust was established when LTLT changedits name in 2016 to reflect an earlier expansion of geographic scope into the Hiwasseewatershed and the inclusion of aquatic-based programs typically unassociated withland trusts.Mainspring protects land through voluntary conservation easements, land donations,

or by land acquisitions that are then transferred to agencies, tribal entities, or privateconservation buyers. Mainspring has conserved or partnered to conserve, over 26,000acres of land (Mainspring unpublished data). In 2017 alone, 992 acres were protectedthrough eight different land conservation projects (Mainspring Conservation Trust2017). Although water cannot be protected through easements or acquisition,Mainspring uses water to underscore the need for land protection given the vitalimportance of clean water for local people, economies, and ecosystems. Since 2010,Mainspring has helped enhance aquatic habitat and restore connectivity by stabilizingover three miles (16,000 feet) of eroding streambank and removing six barriers toaquatic organism passage in their service area (Mainspring unpublished data).

Mainspring Conservation Trust as a Boundary Organization

We use Guston’s (1999) three criteria to assess how Mainspring functions as a boundaryorganization. Mainspring meets the first criteria by providing a platform for boundaryobjects to be created and used. Since 1990, community members working withMainspring have collected biomonitoring data in local waterways. By engaging the com-munity in this citizen science effort, Mainspring has facilitated public engagement in theprioritization of restoration and conservation actions (Cosquer, Raymond, and Prevot-Julliard 2012). Though multiple regional and international data repositories have beeninterested in hosting the biomonitoring database since its inception, most were

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 5

short-lived and are no longer maintained due to funding limitations or staff turnover.In some cases, new staff were not able to develop the needed relationships withMainspring to effectively manage their complex biomonitoring dataset. Mainspring hasinstead decided to internally provide a platform for this boundary object, which is pub-licly available on their website (www.mainspringconserves.org). Although the audiencereached through Mainspring is smaller than those reached through regional or inter-national databases, the biomonitoring data nonetheless serves as a repository, which is arecognized boundary object (Star and Griesemer 1989).The biomonitoring data repository has been used by governmental entities, scientists,

and Mainspring itself for diverse purposes. State agencies and the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService have used this biomonitoring data to establish conservation priorities by identi-fying “hotspots” for aquatic species of concern. The data is also used by researchersstudying fish communities in southern Appalachia and was incorporated into an inter-national collection of biodiversity time series data (Dornelas et al. 2018). In 2009,Mainspring used this dataset to secure funding to restore fish passages with landownercooperation at three sites within biologically impaired watersheds. By serving as a toolto engage community members with watershed conservation and providing data utilizedby scientists and government agencies, the biomonitoring dataset has increased capacityto target conservation efforts by bridging these distinct stakeholders.Mainspring also fulfills some aspects of Guston’s (1999) second criteria of a boundary

organization by involving actors from both sides of the boundary. Mainspring relies onthe collaboration of many actors to fulfill its goal as a land trust, including tribal enti-ties, government, and private landowners. To facilitate this collaboration, the Board ofDirectors includes individuals from diverse backgrounds. Most members have lived inthe area for decades, and many continue to be active in community development, eco-nomic, and cultural initiatives. Some board members are trained as scientists, and oneis a member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. This engagement of actors acrossboundaries has helped Mainspring develop the long-term relationships it needs to meetits environmental and cultural conservation objectives by providing a mechanism tohold Mainspring accountable to these diverse actors.Finally, Mainspring meets the third characteristic of boundary organizations: it func-

tions at the interface of distinct social worlds while maintaining accountability to each(Guston 1999). For example, Mainspring has formed strong partnerships with social sci-entists working at the Coweeta Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) site through theCoweeta Listening Project (CLP). The CLP is a venue for researchers to participate inpublic communication, collaboration, and socio-ecological research (Burke et al. 2016).In partnership, Mainspring and the CLP wrote a series of columns for The FranklinPress, a widely read community information source, to increase the visibility of localconservation efforts and programs. This boundary work also led to a technical workingpaper designed to improve the efficacy of Mainspring’s biomonitoring program andfacilitate public participation (Gancos-Crawford et al. 2014) and helped bridge the div-ide between scientists and non-scientists within the community.As part of its mission to preserve cultural heritage, Mainspring has partnered with

the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, who have inhabited the Upper Little TennesseeRiver Valley since 1000 B.C. (Delcourt et al. 1986). The partnership began in 2005

6 K. BROWNSON ET AL.

http://www.mainspringconserves.org

when Cherokee artisans began harvesting established white oak and rivercane standsalong select Mainspring lands. Mainspring has facilitated interactions between theCherokee and local government by helping launch an independent organization:Mountain Partners (Dunsmith 2017). The establishment of Mountain Partners wasbased on values shared by both groups, including reconciliation, economic growth, andpreservation of the area’s diverse cultural history. As part of the reconciliation process,Mainspring utilized a professional mediator to help resolve historic tensions between thetribe and the city of Franklin. One of the organization’s initial actions was to developthe Cherokee Cultural Corridor, five miles of culturally rich land along the LittleTennessee River (Dunsmith 2017). While this joint effort of Cherokee and non-Cherokee community residents is maintained through mutual objectives and values,Mainspring initiated the dialogue that led to the group’s formation (Cherokee OneFeather 2016).Mainspring also works at the interface of diverse social worlds by mediating the some-

times politically contentious boundary between land conservation and private propertyrights. Mainspring’s “Shade Your Stream” initiative encourages landowners to voluntarilyre-vegetate their riparian area. In working with private landowners to complete their ownlow-cost property restoration projects, Mainspring reduces the financial burden ofimproving water quality without imposing restrictive zoning regulations. AlthoughMainspring does not advocate for government regulations, it does provide expertise innavigating the complex processes associated with acquiring government funding for localwatershed conservation actions. For example, Mainspring has partnered with municipal-ities to conserve areas around their drinking water sources by submitting grant proposalsto the state on their behalf (Smoky Mountain News 2013). Mainspring therefore spansmultiple distinct social worlds, including between scientists and non-scientists, Cherokeeand non-Cherokee, and private property rights advocates and conservationists. Their abil-ity to effectively navigate the boundary between distinct social worlds to advance theirconservation and restoration objectives has only been possible because they have builttrust over time with actors on both sides of these boundaries.Mainspring’s work to connect disparate stakeholders using multiple activities has not

been without challenges. Earlier in their history, Mainspring had some communicationbreakdowns with the local community. For example, Mainspring encountered challengeswhile preserving their flagship Needmore Tract, encompassing 5,100 acres whichincludes 26 miles along the Little Tennessee River. The conservation effort requiredcoordination across multiple partners, leaving Mainspring without adequate capacity tosufficiently engage with the public regarding this initiative. Even though the NeedmoreTract was saved from residential development and remains publicly accessible, somecommunity-members have negative feelings toward Mainspring as certain land uses arerestricted. Mainspring saw first-hand the importance of public opinion and now priori-tizes targeted outreach efforts to engage with local landowners and cultivate publicawareness of their activities. This engagement is also important because Mainspringdoes not have cash incentives to encourage landowners to enroll in conservation ease-ments. However, the time and resources required to build relationships and trust withlandowners are often not covered by grants that fund conservation easements and canpose a significant out-of-pocket expense.

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 7

While Mainspring fits the three criteria of a boundary organization, we recognizethere are aspects of the term which it does not fulfill. Boundary organizations describedin the literature most commonly work to bridge science and policy (Borkhataria et al.2017; Gustafsson and Lidskog 2018). In order to effectively engage and maintain trustwith landowners in a place where regulations are politically contentious, Mainspringdoes not advocate for policies that would impose additional regulations. This restrictsthe nonprofit’s ability to link conservation science and policy. However, Mainspring hasused its stream biomonitoring data to enable science to better inform policy and targetlocal action while maintaining connections between governmental entities, scientists andcommunity members. Additionally, while Mainspring has effectively used their streambiomonitoring dataset as a boundary object to connect stakeholders and facilitate tar-geted conservation actions, there are no associated standardized packages. Finally,Mainspring does not regularly use professional mediators to facilitate collaborationacross their diverse partners and board members.

Discussion

In this paper, we demonstrate how Mainspring acts as a boundary organization thatworks at the interface of science and local action by connecting diverse stakeholders toachieve common objectives (Cook et al. 2013; Caine 2016) and maintaining accountabil-ity to both parties (Guston 1999). We use Guston’s (1999) three criteria of a boundaryorganization to frame how land trusts can serve in this role and outline ways in whichacting as a boundary organization can help land trusts meet their conservation objec-tives. The stream biomonitoring database serves as a boundary object, as scientists andnon-scientists created the dataset and utilize it for their own purposes. Additionally, therepresentation of citizens, scientists, and developers on the Board of Directors hasallowed Mainspring to act as an intermediary, facilitating cooperation among stakehold-ers to conserve significant ecological and cultural sites. Mainspring has also functionedat the interface between multiple social worlds, maintaining accountability to govern-mental, tribal, scientific, and community partners. Table 1 illustrates several projectsMainspring has used to facilitate community engagement and trust-building amongthese stakeholders.This case study has two primary transferrable lessons for other land trusts and

boundary organizations working in exurban landscapes or other places where conser-vation activities are urgently needed but politically contentious. First, in bridging thedivide between science and local action, it is important to maintain flexibility byusing a diversity of approaches. Although Mainspring is in some ways similar toother land trusts using conservation easements (Kiesecker et al. 2007), they alsoengage in a variety of additional activities not commonly associated with land trusts.One way they differ from more traditional land trusts is their focus on aquatic eco-systems through their biomonitoring and stream restoration projects. Mainspring hasalso worked with Cherokee partners to protect the region’s cultural heritage, withsocial scientists to develop newspaper publications, and local landowners to restoreriparian buffers. Finally, in contrast with other land trusts that often rely on publicsubsidies and grants to help offset their costs (Merenlender et al. 2004), Mainstream

8 K. BROWNSON ET AL.

has tapped a diversity of funding sources, with most of their funding coming fromindividual donations. Their capacity to access multiple funding streams is a result ofrelationships built while conducting boundary work. Future research should conducta more thorough review of the land trust literature, including gray literature, toevaluate the extent to which other land trusts are similarly working as boundaryorganizations.Second, a focus on fostering long-term relationships with multiple stakeholder groups

can improve the efficacy of conservation boundary work. Given the importance of pri-vate property rights in the region, Mainspring has developed trust and long-term rela-tionships by avoiding politics and not advocating for additional regulations. Byengaging landowners and community members in biomonitoring and riparian restor-ation, Mainspring has cultivated relationships, improving the likelihood that local land-owners will put land into voluntary conservation easements (Cross et al. 2011). Likeother boundary organizations that focus on building trust in the community while pro-moting organizational goals (Caine 2016), Mainspring provides a nuanced approach innavigating tensions between local politics and science that has facilitated long-termrelationships.

Conclusions

In summary, the Mainspring Conservation Trust case study demonstrates how a flexibleand multi-pronged approach to engaging stakeholders can be an effective conservationstrategy within a rapidly changing landscape characterized by limited land use regula-tions. Mainspring’s ability to work directly with landowners minimizes the social andeconomic costs of addressing these conservation challenges. Mainspring’s long history ofworking as a boundary organization between indigenous communities, academics, land-owners, and government entities provides an example of how land trusts in exurbanlandscapes with limited regulations can successfully meet their conservation mission.Boundary work is especially relevant in this exurbanizing context, as scientists have

Table 1. Mainspring Conservation Trust projects, the local groups which participated in each initia-tive, and their intended outcomes.Mainspring project Participatory groups Intended outcomes

Stream biomonitoring Community membersGovernment entitiesScientists

� Community engagementand awareness

� Informing policy� Scientific research advancement� Increased government funding

Mountain partners Community membersEastern Band of Cherokee IndiansGovernment entities

� Cultural land preservation� Economic development� Improved relations

Local newspaper publications Community membersScientists

� Increased public communication� Higher visibility of conservation

initiativesShade Your Stream Landowners � Relationship-building

with landowners� Improved water quality

Watershed conservation grantapplications

CommunitiesGovernment entities

� Improved water quality� Land conservation� Relationship-building with

communities

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 9

demonstrated a clear need for additional conservation activities on private property toprotect biodiversity and ecosystem services.This case study contributes to the boundary organization literature by expanding

our conceptualization of boundary organizations beyond groups working at thescience-policy interface. By expanding the definition, we highlight the critical role oforganizations bridging the divide between science and local action to conserve biologic-ally and culturally rich landscapes despite inadequate regulations.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mainspring Conservation Trust for their insights and support in devel-oping this manuscript as well as four anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful suggestionswhich greatly improved the quality of this manuscript.

Funding

We also acknowledge funding support from the NSF LTER program (award # 0218001).

References

Borkhataria, R. R., P. R. Wetzel, H. Henriquez, and S. E. Davis. 2017. The Synthesis ofEverglades Restoration and Ecosystem Services (SERES): A case study for interactive know-ledge exchange to guide Everglades restoration. Restoration Ecology 25:S18–S26. doi:10.1111/rec.12593.

Burke, B. J., M. Welch-Devine, S. Gustafson, N. Heynen, J. L. Rice, T. L. Gragson, S. R. Evans,and D. R. Nelson. 2016. Can science writing collectives overcome barriers to more democraticcommunication and collaboration? Lessons from the environmental communication praxis inSouthern Appalachia. Environmental Communication 10 (2):169–86. doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.999695.

Burkett, V., S. Ritschard, J. J. McNulty, R. O’Brien, J. Abt, U. Jones, B. Hatch, S. Murray, S.Jagtap, and J. Cruise. 2001. Potential consequences of climate variability and change for thesoutheastern United States. In Climate change impacts on the United States: The potential con-sequences of climate vulnerability and change. Report for the US Global Change ResearchProgram, 137-166. Foundation Report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Caine, K. J. 2016. Blurring the boundaries of environmentalism: The role of Canadian parks andwilderness society as a boundary organization in northern conservation planning. RuralSociology 81 (2):194–223. doi:10.1111/ruso.12094.

Carr, A., and R. Wilkinson. 2005. Beyond participation: Boundary organizations as a new spacefor farmers and scientists to interact. Society & Natural Resources 18 (3):255–65. doi:10.1080/08941920590908123.

Cash, D. W. 2001. In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information: Agriculturalextension and boundary organizations. Science Technology and Human Values 26 (4):431–53.doi:10.1177/016224390102600403.

Cash, D. W., and S. C. Moser. 2000. Linking global and local scales: Designing dynamic assess-ment and management processes. Global Environmental Change 10 (2):109–20. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00017-0.

Chang, K. 2016. National land trust census report. https://www.landtrustalliance.org/about/national-land-trust-census (accessed July 18, 2018).

Cherokee One Feather. 2016. Mountain partners envisioning Nikwasi-Cowee future. https://theone-feather.com/2016/02/mountain-partners-envisioning-nikwasi-cowee-future/ (accessed September4, 2018).

10 K. BROWNSON ET AL.

https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12593https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12593https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.999695https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.999695https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12094https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590908123https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590908123https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600403https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00017-0https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00017-0https://www.landtrustalliance.org/about/national-land-trust-censushttps://www.landtrustalliance.org/about/national-land-trust-censushttps://theonefeather.com/2016/02/mountain-partners-envisioning-nikwasi-cowee-future/https://theonefeather.com/2016/02/mountain-partners-envisioning-nikwasi-cowee-future/

Cook, C. N., M. B. Mascia, M. W. Schwartz, H. P. Possingham, and R. A. Fuller. 2013. Achievingconservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. Conservation Biology 27 (4):669–78. doi:10.1111/cobi.12050.

Cosquer, A., R. Raymond, and A. C. Prevot-Julliard. 2012. Observations of everyday biodiversity:A new perspective for conservation? Ecology and Society 17 (4):2. doi:10.5751/ES-04955-170402.

Cross, J. E., C. M. Keske, M. G. Lacy, D. L. K. Hoag, and C. T. Bastian. 2011. Adoption ofconservation easements among agricultural landowners in Colorado and Wyoming: The roleof economic dependence and sense of place. Landscape and Urban Planning 101 (1):75–83.doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.005.

Delcourt, P. A., H. R. Delcourt, P. A. Cridlebaugh, and J. Chapman. 1986. Holocene ethnobotan-ical and paleoecological record of human impact on vegetation in the Little-Tennessee RiverValley. Quaternary Research 25 (3):330–49. doi:10.1016/0033-5894(86)90005-0.

Dornelas, M., L. H. Ant~ao, F. Moyes, A. E. Bates, A. E. Magurran, D. Adam, A. A.Akhmetzhanova, W. Appeltans, J. M. Arcos, H. Arnold, et al. 2018. BioTIME: A database ofbiodiversity time series for the Anthropocene. Global Ecology and Biogeography 27 (7):760–86.doi:10.1111/geb.12729

Dunsmith, G. 2017. Nikwasi: A cultural corridor highlights Cherokee culture in the mountains ofNorth Carolina. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5af338fb55b02c9f4c61e4f2/t/5b3272a588251bbafaff95a5/1530032805436/Dunsmith_Nikwasi.pdf (accessed September 4, 2018).

Evans, S. R., and D. Jensen-Ryan. 2017. Exurbanization and its impact on water resources:Stream management among newcomer and generational landowners in southern Appalachia.Appalachian Journal 44 (1–2):26–50.

Farmer, J. R., V. Meretsky, D. Knapp, C. Chancellor, and B. C. Fischer. 2015. Why agree to aconservation easement? Understanding the decision of conservation easement granting.Landscape and Urban Planning 138:11–9. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.01.005.

Gancos-Crawford, T., C. E. Mertzlufft, S. Ortiz, J. Bloodgood, E. Guinessey, K. Brownson, H.Burnett, J. Chappell, J. Howard, L. Kosen, et al. 2014. Grade Your Stream Program PlanningGuide.

Goldman, R. L., H. Tallis, P. Kareiva, and G. C. Daily. 2008. Field evidence that ecosystem serviceprojects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America 105 (27):9445–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.0800208105.

Gragson, T. L., and P. V. Bolstad. 2006. Land use legacies and the future of southern Appalachia.Society & Natural Resources 19 (2):175–90. doi:10.1080/08941920500394857.

Gustafsson, K. M., and R. Lidskog. 2018. Boundary organizations and environmental governance:Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development. Climate Risk Management 19:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2017.11.001.

Guston, D. H. 1999. Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of theOffice of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science 29 (1):87–111. doi:10.1177/030631299029001004.

Guston, D. H. 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduc-tion. Science, Technology, & Human Values 26:399–408. doi:10.1177/016224390102600401.

Heynen, N., J. McCarthy, S. Prudham, and P. Robbins. 2007. Neoliberal environments: Falsepromises and unnatural consequences. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kennedy, E. B. 2018. Supporting scientific advice through a boundary organization. GlobalChallenges 2 (9):1800018. doi:10.1002/gch2.201800018.

Kiesecker, J. M., T. Comendant, T. Grandmason, E. Gray, C. Hall, R. Hilsenbeck, P. Kareiva, L.Lozier, P. Naehu, A. Rissman, et al. 2007. Conservation easements in context: A quantitativeanalysis of their use by The Nature Conservancy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(3):125–30. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[125:CEICAQ.2.0.CO;2]

Kirk, R. W., P. V. Bolstad, and S. M. Manson. 2012. Spatio-temporal trend analysis of long-termdevelopment patterns (1900–2030) in a Southern Appalachian County. Landscape and UrbanPlanning 104 (1):47–58. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.09.008.

Knight, R. L. 1999. Private lands: The neglected geography. Conservation Biology 13 (2):223–4.

SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 11

https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12050https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04955-170402https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04955-170402https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.005https://doi.org/10.1016/0033-5894(86)90005-0https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12729https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5af338fb55b02c9f4c61e4f2/t/5b3272a588251bbafaff95a5/1530032805436/Dunsmith_Nikwasi.pdfhttps://static1.squarespace.com/static/5af338fb55b02c9f4c61e4f2/t/5b3272a588251bbafaff95a5/1530032805436/Dunsmith_Nikwasi.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.01.005https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0800208105https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920500394857https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.11.001https://doi.org/10.1177/030631299029001004https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600401https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201800018https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[125:CEICAQ.2.0.CO;2]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.09.008

Mainspring Conservation Trust. 2017. A legacy of caring for our mountains: 2017 Annual report.https://issuu.com/mainspringconservationtrust/docs/final_pdf (accessed July 18, 2018).

Mainspring Conservation Trust. 2018. http://www.mainspringconserves.org/what-we-do/ (accessedJuly 18, 2018).

Merenlender, A. M., L. Huntsinger, G. Guthey, and S. K. Fairfax. 2004. Land trusts and conserva-tion easements: Who is conserving what for whom? Conservation Biology 18 (1):65–75. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00401.x.

Owley, J., and A. R. Rissman. 2016. Trends in private land conservation: Increasing complexity,shifting conservation purposes and allowable private land uses. Land Use Policy 51:76–84. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.026.

Price, K., and D. S. Leigh. 2006. Comparative water quality of lightly- and moderately-impactedstreams in the southern Blue Ridge Mountains, USA. Environmental Monitoring andAssessment 120 (1–3):269–300. doi:10.1007/s10661-005-9060-1.

Smoky Mountain News. 2013. Land trust for the little Tennessee helps gain protection foranother town watershed. February 20. http://www.smokymountainnews.com/outdoors/item/9885-land-trust-for-little-tennesseehelps-gain-protection-for-another-town-watershed

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. 1996. The Southern Appalachianassessment: Summary report. http://www.samab.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/SAA_sum-mary_report.pdf (accessed July 18, 2018).

Spectorsky, A. C. 1955. The exurbanites. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects –

Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. SocialStudies of Science 19 (3):387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001.

Sternlieb, F., R. P. Bixler, H. Huber-Stearns, and C. Huayhuaca. 2013. A question of fit:Reflections on boundaries, organizations and social-ecological systems. Journal ofEnvironmental Management 130:117–25. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.053.

Taylor, L. 2011. No boundaries: Exurbia and the study of contemporary urban dispersion.GeoJournal 76 (4):323–39. doi:10.1007/s10708-009-9300-y.

Vercoe, R. A., M. Welch-Devine, D. Hardy, J. A. Demoss, S. N. Bonney, K. Allen, P. Brosius, D.Charles, B. Crawford, S. Heisel, et al. 2014. Acknowledging trade-offs and understanding com-plexity: Exurbanization issues in Macon County, North Carolina. Ecology and Society 19 (1):11.doi:10.5751/ES-05970-190123.

Vieites, D. R., M. Min, and D. B. Wake. 2007. Rapid diversification and dispersal during periodsof global warming by Plethodontid salamanders. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America 104 (50):19903–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.0705056104.

Westerink, J., R. Jongeneel, N. Polman, K. Prager, J. Franks, P. Dupraz, and E. Mettepenningen.2017. Collaborative governance arrangements to deliver spatially coordinated agri-environmen-tal management. Land Use Policy 69:176–92. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.002.

Wu, W., J. S. Clark, and J. M. Vose. 2014. Response of hydrology to climate change in the south-ern Appalachian Mountains using Bayesian inference. Hydrological Processes 28 (4):1616–26.doi:10.1002/hyp.9677.

12 K. BROWNSON ET AL.

https://issuu.com/mainspringconservationtrust/docs/final_pdfhttp://www.mainspringconserves.org/what-we-do/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00401.xhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00401.xhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.026https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-9060-1http://www.smokymountainnews.com/outdoors/item/9885-land-trust-for-little-tennesseehelps-gain-protection-for-another-town-watershedhttp://www.smokymountainnews.com/outdoors/item/9885-land-trust-for-little-tennesseehelps-gain-protection-for-another-town-watershedhttp://www.samab.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/SAA_summary_report.pdfhttp://www.samab.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/SAA_summary_report.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.053https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-009-9300-yhttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05970-190123https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705056104https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.002https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9677

AbstractIntroductionCase StudyBackground on Southern AppalachiaMainspring Conservation TrustMainspring Conservation Trust as a Boundary Organization

DiscussionConclusionsAcknowledgmentsReferences